Antifa Drives Andy Ngo Into Exile – Mainstream Press Silent

/in /by

If there is anyone in America who should NOT be silenced, or ignored, it is Andy Ngo. This soft spoken, level-headed, and courageous journalist has tirelessly exposed both the relentless violence of Antifa as well as the appalling negligence of civic authorities to crack down on the violence.

For his trouble, Ngo has been maligned by Rolling Stone as a “right-wing troll,” and by Vox as a “far right sympathizer.” Yielding to the same organized intimidation that prevents city councils from prosecuting Antifa violence, Ngo has been thrown off Pay Pal and Instagram. In Ngo’s home city of Portland, the landmark independent bookstore, Powells, has announced they will not stock his forthcoming book. And now, Ngo, a gay immigrant born in Vietnam, has been driven out of his adopted nation.

Ngo has already been a victim of political violence, in a June 29, 2019 attack by an Antifa mob that the leftist press somehow spun as something he brought upon himself. Their reasoning seemed to rest on the assumption that because Ngo was “biased against Antifa,” he had it coming. But Ngo’s videos speak for themselves.

Throughout the summer and fall of 2020, visitors to Ngo’s Twitter feed were treated to irrefutable evidence of the violence convulsing the nation, violence that was dismissed by the press as “mostly peaceful.” This violence is ongoing, and in nearly every case, Antifa has been the main instigator. And again and again and again and again, Ngo not only posted videos of the violence, but mug shots of the few perpetrators that would be arrested. And in nearly every case, they were immediately bailed out and charges were dropped.

No wonder Andy Ngo had to flee for his life. As he explained earlier this week on Sky News, Ngo, now in London, said “For a number of months now, there’s just been increasing threats of violence against me, promises by Antifa extremists to kill me. And all of those threats were reported to authorities, and even when I provided names of some of the suspects, nothing was done.”

Nothing was done. This is how people doing genuine investigative work are treated in America today. Ignored by the mainstream media, demonized by the more extreme leftist media, and left to fend for themselves by the authorities.

There is a pattern to this, because Antifa violence never had to spiral out of control in 2020 and engulf half the major cities in America. It was tolerated and even encouraged. And in many cases, the city councils that could have done something about it were too intimidated by Antifa mobs following them to their homes and threatening them.

When ridiculous corporate stooges like ABC Nightly “News” anchor David Muir gravely warn their gullible audiences about the threat from the “right wing,” they know what they’re doing. They’re willfully ignoring a trained army on the Left that has been extremely useful.

Andy Ngo is an American hero. We can only hope his work will continue, and that he will stay safe.

 *   *   *

Communication Monopolies Broaden Censorship Tactics

/in /by

Will browsers start censoring content?

Major platforms cancelling individual accounts is old news – that’s a steadily escalating crackdown that’s been going on since 2016. It now extends into silencing dissenting views on elections, race, gender, medicine, and anything they call “Q.” Expect climate “deniers” to be next.

Meanwhile, throttling down channels, killing their comments sections, or simply obliterating them, is not enough. The censorship tactics have moved well beyond that, and now extend into denying objectionable voices access to online financial services.

In a major escalation, the major hosts have even destroyed entire platforms, starting when WordPress deplatformed Conservative Treehouse, and going to a whole new level when Amazon deplatformed Parler. But this war is just getting started.

As many people are driven back to the major platforms, the “rules and policies” governing speech are being tightened further, as “misinformation” becomes a new criteria for silencing people. Twitter’s new guidelines threaten censorship for speech that is “manipulated,” “deceptive,” or likely to “impact public safety.” On the surface, none of these criteria sound unreasonable, which is why they are so dangerous. They are entirely arbitrary.

Exploiting these arbitrary guidelines are complaint mobs, organized and funded by left-wing activist groups. They launch coordinated, high-volume complaints on targeted social media accounts, and knock them off, one after another.

These guidelines and these pressure groups are also attempting to convert those alternative media platforms to the same expansive and arbitrary rules and policies restricting speech that have been adopted by sites like Twitter. Responding to this intimidation, platforms like DLive have recently canceled the accounts of content creators who had migrated there after being thrown off YouTube.

This is full spectrum warfare on free speech, and it gets worse. The cancel mobs are putting pressure on Podcasts, a mode of expression that is difficult to monitor because it is audio only and the material is usually broadcast in long-form segments. The war on free speech now extends as well to book publishers, as evidenced by this appalling letter from “publishing professionals” demanding publishers reject book deals with anyone who ever worked for President Trump.

And should anyone doubt the high-tech oligarchs aren’t willing and able to root out free speech they don’t think should be free, by any means necessary, consider these recent comments by Marc Andreesen, the man who founded Netscape (remember Netscape?), and who is now a well-heeled Silicon Valley venture capitalist:

“Marc Andreessen believes a new wave of content blocking could come from internet service providers, browser makers and email operators.” Don’t doubt this. Mail Chimp and Mail Lite are actively cancelling conservative accounts. ISPs have blocked websites and could easily become more aggressive. And as for browsers, or even ICANN, why not?

This is going to be a long and exhausting war. Big tech really ought to back off. By suppressing dissent, they are fanning the flames of extremism, not putting them out.

 *   *   *

 

Vincent James O’Connor Banned From DLive

/1 Comment/in /by

It isn’t easy to monitor everything Vincent James O’Connor has ever said or written online. Since 2015 he has been a prolific creator of online content, with an output that includes three hour live video segments, streamed multiple times each week.

So maybe Vincent James O’Connor has said something absolutely horrible, something so vile that even those of us who defend his right to free speech would be hesitant to defend him. That’s not likely, though, because despite being on the predictable leftist hit lists for years, YouTube didn’t kick him off their platform until a few months ago. He discussed all of this on a video he recently posted to BitChute.

Demonetized by YouTube along with Steven Crowder and dozens of others in June 2019, O’Connor started placing 3rd party ads on his own. It wasn’t until August of 2020 that YouTube cancelled O’Connor’s “Red Elephants” channel altogether. No strikes. No warning. No reason provided.

Meanwhile, O’Connor had begun streaming on DLive, a relatively new platform that welcomed everyone. Five days a week, three hours per day, for nearly a year, O’Connor was broadcasting on DLive, putting in the same volume of work as major talk radio hosts. And by doing this, this man whose political opinions have made him unemployable in most professions was able support his family.

But no more. All too aware of what happened to Parler, shortly after the events of January 6, management at DLive banned O’Connor from their platform. The people banned along with O’Connor had some of the biggest audiences on DLive, including Nick Fuentes, Patrick Casey, Ethan Ralph, Patrick , Steve Franzen, Salty Cracker, Jake Lloyd, and many others.

Coping with being thrown off two platforms where he’d placed his biggest bets, O’Connor has now made his primary home a new platform Trovo.live/VincentJames. For financial support Vincent James O’Connor’s Red Elephants relies on viewers going either to SubscribeStar or using Bitcoin. He cannot be supported via CashApp, PayPal, Venmo, GooglePay, or Apple Pay, because they’ve all banned him. For that matter, O’Connor has also been banned by Airbnb, Uber, Uber Eats, Vrbo and others.

There are at least two things signified by what’s happened to O’Connor. First, if you become a target of the left and the censors, they won’t stop at pushing you off platforms. Your banishment will extend to a full spectrum of online services including payment processors, transportation, and lodging.

Second, and more generally, the censorship in America has advanced beyond silencing individual voices like Vincent James O’Connor, and has now moved to silencing entire platforms. Parler is gone and may or may not come back. DLive has been kneecapped. Telegram is coming under siege, and not surprising at all, a front in this battle is Apple, which is being sued by someone alleging “emotional distress” based on Telegram’s presence in Apple’s App Store. And Gab, not dependent on 3rd party servers, is overwhelmed with traffic and faces a tough challenge: How will they make enough money to expand, if every bank, major hosting vendor or ISP, and possibly even ICANN is determined to see them fail. How will any of them?

If Vincent James O’Connor has said anything, ever, to justify this sort of censorship, then YouTube ought to be willing to provide the evidence. The same goes for every single case of censorship. The Left in the United States, backed up by a frightening array of corporate and federal power, has nearly succeeded is eliminating not “hate speech,” but speech they hate. This must stop.

 *   *   *

Censorship Movement Turns to the “Loophole” of Podcasts

/1 Comment/in /by

The Associated Press, always a reliable source of establishment policy messaging, has a new target for the censors: Podcasts. An article released by AP on January 15 entitled “Extremists exploit a loophole in social moderation: Podcasts,” posted on countless news websites, expresses frustration that the censors can’t easily get at podcasts.

This doesn’t mean podcasters are invulnerable. Most podcasts rely on only three companies to gain exposure, if not the actual platform, for their podcasts: Apple, Spotify and Google. And these companies are coming under increasing pressure to censor podcasters. A spokesperson for the Anti Defamation League is quoted in the article:

“Podcasts filled with hatred and incitement to violence should not be treated any differently than any other content. If you’re going to take a strong stance against hate and extremism in the platform in any way, it should be all-inclusive.”

The difficulty with monitoring podcasts is their long form and audio format makes it hard to identify brief episodes of “misinformation” (or whatever) that could be buried within hours of otherwise innocuous content. But speech recognition algorithms are fast approaching the level where that barrier goes away. In the meantime, orchestrated complaints, a word from groups like the ADL, or even just an inquiry from the Associated Press can cause a podcast to get cancelled.

A few days earlier, on January 12, the Podcast Business Journal ran an article entitled “Censorship Abounds. Should Podcasters Be Worried?” Taking the form of an interview with “the podcasting industry’s favorite attorney for answers,” the responses were not encouraging.

The interview led off with the same “it’s a private company” nonsense we’re still hearing from brain dead libertarian purists. YouTube, Twitter, Facebook and Apple dominate their markets. Rather than break them up (which would be justifiable under anti-trust law), and rather than take away their Section 230 exemption, just require them to adhere to Section 230! That would mean if these platforms want to keep the exemption, they can’t ban anything that’s not violating the First Amendment.

This expert attorney then makes an astonishingly naive claim: “I don’t think podcasters need to be ‘careful’ about anything but being truthful and presenting things fairly. It’s OK to have an opinion, even an unpopular one, but to clothe it in language of fact is deceit, and shouldn’t be tolerated.”

He is missing the big picture entirely. Requiring honest “facts” and prohibiting anything that is “intentionally misleading” as a condition of avoiding censorship is a slippery slope. Who decides what is factual? Who decides whether someone was just wrong, or was intentionally misleading? Do people have a right to be wrong? One would hope so. If this becomes accepted practice, how many topics will become priorities for “factchecker” censors? Shall we be censored if we disagree over climate change, or systemic racism? The election fraud issue is just a wedge.

One note of balance in the AP article, something that unfortunately won’t get much traction, is their quote from Jillian York, an expert at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, who said “the [censorship] tide is against the speech of right-wing extremists … but tomorrow the tide might be against opposition activists.”

 *   *   *

American Thinker Disables Comments Section

/1 Comment/in /by

Reading comments on websites is kind of like watching fringe channels that traffic in conspiracy theories. There’s a lot to wade through that is at best a waste of time, but if you persevere you will eventually find information of great interest that cannot be found anywhere else.

If you want to control what people see and what people learn, that is a threat. Comments must go.

This is why back in June 2020 The Federalist was forced to disable its comments section in order to keep Google ads. At the same time, Google banned ZeroHedge outright, taking away their ad revenue, alleging “racist” comments on the website. The following month, Yahoo News “temporarily” disabled its comments section.

Each of these incidents had one thing in common: comments posted introduced readers to information that was inconvenient. In Yahoo’s case, comments leaned conservative, and almost always exposed the article’s lies, omissions, distortions, and bias. Six months later, Yahoo’s temporary ban is still in force.

Now another right-of-center online source of news and analysis, American Thinker, has also disabled its comments section. In a post on January 14, the editor wrote: “It is news to almost nobody who reads American Thinker that a political witch hunt is underway. Parties in and out of government are looking for excuses to suppress and destroy voices that oppose the left. Because AT lacks the ability to monitor comments in real time, and because our position that comments are a forum, not something we publish, is being called into question, we can no longer publish comments.”

It is true that comments are often offensive. But how the tech companies that enable hosting and ad revenue choose which websites to intimidate is selective, either driven by leftwing bias within companies like Google and Amazon, or driven by complaint mobs that the Left is very good at organizing and targeting. If you have any doubt that enforcement is selective, just read the comments on DailyKos articles. For that matter, read the comments on Washington Post articles. They don’t hold back. They don’t get banned, either.

Ultimately what the establishment fears is open forums that lead to shifts in what is “acceptable political discourse.” An article published in July 2019 by the BBC made the establishment position embarrassingly plain on the threat represented by right-of-center narratives, writing that “The more mainstream these narratives become, the greater the tension will be over whether they really are extreme or whether they represent acceptable political discourse, and the views of a substantial number of real people.”

Comments on websites, like posts and videos, are protected speech. Just as platforms where people add posts and videos enjoy Section 230 immunity from liability for the content of those posts and videos, the website forums where comments are made are entitled to the same immunity. Unfortunately, big tech and their mobs of online warriors are seeing to it these forums are shut down anyway, one by one.

This is yet another front in the battle to preserve online free speech. Perhaps at the least, the Right needs to organize its own complaint mobs!

 *   *   *

Parler is Dead

/2 Comments/in /by

The destruction of Parler by Google, Apple, and Amazon is a harbinger for what is to come. The sad reality, moreover, is that the tech giants have still used only a fraction of their power. Manipulating search results, throttling up or down various Tweets or Facebook posts or YouTube videos, even deplatforming, was only the prelude. Now it has been shown that the tech companies are willing to deny hosting services.

As discussed in a useful article published by ZD Net, a website that covers technology business, there are only a handful of hosting and cloud providers that have the capacity to host large websites. Amazon is one of the biggest, and as Parler CEO John Matze has acknowledged, the other big hosting services are reluctant to defy Amazon and accept Parler’s business.

This should surprise nobody. It is not merely the management of tech companies that are determined to silence the American Right. The workforces of these companies are typically more activist than their bosses, and as well these companies are under pressure from powerful leftist nonprofits. Any major provider that accepts business from Parler will be targeted, and they know it. Why bother?

What this means should be clear to every other online property that caters to right-wing content creators. If you get too big, you will need serious technical support from very large service providers, and you are not going to get it. This means there is a ceiling on how much alternative platforms can grow. BitChute and Rumble, which are growing fast, could easily hit this wall.

Moreover, even if alternative platforms innovate with models such as Napster which essentially decentralized the servers onto millions of client machines, there are other ways that big tech can attack them. The ISPs can ban the transmission of specific URLs using automated algorithms. It is even possible that the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) can create a blacklist of URLs, refusing to recognize them and preventing their ability to operate on the internet. And of course as we’ve already seen, every major financial institution from PayPal to Chase can cancel the accounts of individuals and businesses that traffic in right-wing content.

This week Big Tech served notice to the American Right: We are going to keep you on the run, we are going to limit your audiences, we are going to keep you small and we are going to watch everything you do. We are going to do everything in our power to prevent you from getting your message to millions of people.

Among the many tragic implications of this virtual lockdown is the fact that alternative media has become the only place to find balance. The American news media is awash in propaganda. It is sickening.

 *   *   *

YouTube Escalates War on Free Speech

/3 Comments/in /by

The sad events of January 6 have provided Big Tech another excuse to ramp up their censorship. For example, the next day, YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki announced new policies for the video platform, explaining they would apply a “strike” and temporary account suspension for anyone posting a “false claim,” and that with three strikes accounts would be permanently removed.

Notably, Wojcicki did not restrict this new policy to election fraud. Any “false claim,” from election fraud to a doctor talking about alternative therapies to treat COVID-19, or whatever, is subject to the new policy. Bear in mind the thin, often imperceptible line between fact and opinion, and the significance of what YouTube has done is magnified.

But censorship is busting out all over. Facebook and Twitter have both just banned President Trump’s accounts. If these platforms, which still attract the vast majority of social media users in America, can ban the President of the United States, they can ban anyone. For anything.

These high profile acts of censorship mask more subtle operations on lesser known victims. Earlier this week we marveled at YouTube’s tolerance of an interview with Catherine Austin Fitts, a financial entrepreneur and former high ranking official with HUD. Fitts offered dystopian but informative thoughts on where the world is headed, in a 48 minute interview that covered the topics of economic authoritarianism, the future of the U.S. dollar, transhumanism, global elites, and – gasp – how the COVID pandemic is providing an excuse to institute controls necessary to convert the planet from democratic processes to technocracy.

Between 12/22/2020 and 1/06/2021, the video earned nearly 3.0 million views.

And then it was gone.

Nothing Fitts had to say ought to be forbidden speech. The fact that it was taken down just raises Fitts credibility, at the same time as it fuels conspiracy theories, because there is no reasonable explanation for why YouTube would unilaterally disable a video with content that appears to be nothing more than harmless speculation.

This particular YouTube interview could not be found elsewhere. But Fitts does have a robust presence on alternative platforms. Find much of the same topics being explored by Fitts by entering her name into the search box on BitChute. Decide for yourself if her thoughts ought to be cancelled by the Big Tech overlords.

 *   *   *

“Planet Lockdown” – An Interview With Catherine Austin Fitts

/2 Comments/in /by

The beauty of the internet, at least so far, is that even amid cancelation mobs and implacable algorithms, we still see extremely transgressive videos slip through. One of those videos is a 48 minute interview with Catherine Austin Fitts, posted on YouTube on December 22, 2020. In barely two weeks, it has already been watched 2.4 million times. YouTube censors, where are you?

Fitts, a former high ranking official with HUD, then a financial entrepreneur, leads off by explaining that the world is moving into a new era of economic totalitarianism. She observes that the wealth of the world is becoming more and more concentrated into nations with advanced technology, and within those nations, disproportionately to a small elite. She claims the COVID pandemic is providing an excuse to institute controls necessary to convert the planet from democratic processes to technocracy.

According to Fitts, in 1995, as neoliberal ideology took hold in both political parties in the U.S., the decision was made to transfer most of the wealth out of the country. This is the hollowing out that Trump’s populism attempted to reverse. But now, with the process nearly complete, Pitt alleges the pandemic is the cover whereby the unsustainable financial situation in the United States – because it was hollowed out – can be “reset.” As she puts it, “every implication of the financial coup can be explained by the magic virus.”

But Fitts is just getting warmed up. She then says the virus is being used as the means to compel mass vaccine injections that will make it possible to digitally identify and track every person. These biometric markers will then be used to connect people to a new cyber currency, allowing complete control. She believes there are five sectors working in tandem to create this new world order:

(1) Technology industry building clouds.

(2) Military doing space development.

(3) Big pharma developing injections to modify human DNA.

(4) Media providing propaganda.

(5) Central bankers engineering a new crypto system of global currency.

These are the sorts of conspiracy theories that got dozens of prominent channels representing the Q collective thrown off YouTube back in October 2020. Fitts, because she isn’t talking about satanic cults and global pedophile rings, will see her words last a little longer before the censors come for her. But while her content is less salacious, it is dealing with subjects – also plumbed by the Q investigators – that are equally troubling and far more central to our global economic destiny.

What Fitts is describing is a dark version of futurism. Her perspective is negative, but lucid. Technology makes it much easier for a small group of people to get together and become very powerful. But why? Fitts offers a logical answer:

“If technology can make it possible for people to live 150 years, and it isn’t possible to keep this a secret, then why not downsize the population, integrate robots, and you can have a very wealthy and luxurious life without the management headaches?” In one particularly chilling quote, Fitts says “I was having a conversation with a venture capitalist, billionaire type, and he looked at me with these amazingly dead eyes and said ‘I can take every company and completely automate it with software and robotics and fire all the humans. We don’t need them any more.'”

Watch this video while you still can. Some of the ideas and allegations may stretch credulity, but nonetheless are essential concepts for anyone trying to make sense of where we may be headed as a civilization.

 *   *   *

W84 Adds Gateway Pundit, Natural News, and Lame Cherry

/1 Comment/in /by

Thanks to suggestions from our viewers, we have added three more suppressed platforms to the Winston84 directory.

The first of these, and long overdue for inclusion, is the Gateway Pundit, edited by Jim Hoft and active since 2004. The Gateway Pundit has a U.S. Alexa rank of 104, making it one of the most heavily trafficked websites in America. It’s easy to see why, its home page is updated with a dozen or more articles per day with news that can’t be found on the mainstream platforms. There are already plenty of Free Speech Ally websites in our directory that do the same, and Gateway Pundit is as good as any. Before diving deeper into the rabbit hole, check these sites to find out what David Muir, Norah O’Donnell, and all the rest of the useless corporate media drones ignore.

For a site kicked off Facebook in 2019, and subsequently subject to one Facebook’s most aggressive campaigns to eliminate any links to it even in Facebook comments, visit Natural News, edited by Mike Adams. Earlier this year, and about a year after Facebook banned Natural News, Vox – one of the most biased (and uncensored) websites in the English language – published an article bemoaning the refusal of Natural News to go away, dubbing it “a hub for climate change deniers and anti-vaxxers.” That alone makes it worth including. Not because everything the anti-vaxxers or climate skeptics have to say is always accurate, but because they offer a valuable counter-perspective, and have the right to express their point of view.

To go deep, deep into the rabbit hole, visit the website of the always interesting Lame Cherry. An examination of Lame Cherry’s prolific output suggests the website is a cross between Alex Jones, the National Enquirer, and Maxim. The author, who is anonymous, appears to have an endearing and total indifference to whether or not they offend anyone. If you want to rummage through an eclectic and articulate mix of reports on topics that include alien UFOs, orbiting beam weapons, anti-matter, election fraud, speculation regarding the recent incident in Nashville, and instructions on how to build a pizza oven, Lame Cherry is for you. And remember, as with Alex Jones, it is likely that sprinkled amid the hyperbole and conjecture are facts you will not find anywhere else.

We thank our viewers for suggestions and tips. Please keep them coming.

 *   *   *

Online Censorship of “Transition Skeptics”

/1 Comment/in /by

Probably one of the deadliest minefields, among all categories of suppressed discourse, is to venture into the topic of transsexuals with anything apart from absolute adherence to the politically correct perspective. Rather than do that, we’d just like to draw attention to the work of 4thWaveNow, a website and Twitter account that bills itself as “youth transition skeptics.”

It took some digging, but it appears that “4th Wave Now” is how the site’s authors assert their embrace of “4th wave feminism,” as opposed to being labeled “TERFs,” which stands for “trans-exclusionary radical feminists.” While most of us on the Right believe identity politics is a massive distraction designed to occupy the minds of people who might otherwise pay attention to things like, oh, say, the loss of American sovereignty or the consolidation of political and economic power by a globalist oligarchy or the increasing irrelevancy of the Bill of Rights, for leftists, identity politics are of paramount importance. And to be fair, in the case of transsexuals, when someone is contemplating a medical procedure as profound as sex reassignment, how they define their “identity” is indeed consequential.

But that’s the point of this brave website, operated by an avowed leftist, who has had their Twitter account repeatedly censored, and was banned from Medium, for straying ever so slightly from the agenda of mainstream transsexual approved thought. Or as they put it: “A community of people who question the medicalization of gender-atypical youth.”

In plain English – and this will undoubtedly get some nuance wrong – this website is providing a forum for people who question the prevailing medical bias towards rapid diagnosis of young children not only with gender dysphoria, but also towards irreversible medical treatments designed to “confirm” the new sex of the patient.

This website probably would be censored more if they posted more often and had more visitors. Consider the price paid by other dutiful leftists such as JK Rowling, who by merely questioning the approved narrative of the transsexual community has been dubbed an “aggressive biological essentialist” along with the more intelligible stigma, “transphobe.” JK Rowling is going to be harassed for the rest of her life.

In the context of free speech and online censorship, which is the point of including 4thWaveNow in the Winston84 directory, one must reflect on how slight their violations were to nonetheless invite such a heavy response from Twitter. Trans activism, like so much on the Left, is intolerant in the extreme, and yet it informs the censorship policies of the major online platforms.

 *   *   *